--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:34 PM
To: "Peter Moulder" <Peter.Moulder@infotech.monash.edu.au>
Cc: "sam" <samuelp@iinet.net.au>; <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: percentage heights in tables (section 17.5.3 of the CSS2.1 spec
on "table height algorithms")
>> The main point is that it does add more implementation effort than you'd
>> expect, and at the moment I believe there are still more significant
>> issues
>> with tables both in the spec and in the extent to which the table spec is
>> implemented in common CSS user agents, so I would expect percentage row
>> heights
>> to be widely implemented soon.
>
> I assumed that it would follow the standard rules for percentage
> heights, in that, say, percentage row heights would only 'work' if the
> table had a *definite* height. It wouldn't try to infer what the
> percentage would have to mean based on other row heights. Essentially
> it would work exactly as if the table elements had normal, non-table-*
> display types. Then the value obtained from that calculation would be
> fed into the standard table row/cell height calculations.
>
That’s me and flex units [1] again. In some conditions in tables "HTML
percents" behave
differently than "CSS percents".
Consider this sample:
<html>
<body>
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10" width="100%"
height="100%">
<tr><td>1</td></tr>
<tr height="100%"><td height="100%">2</td></tr>
<tr><td>3</td></tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
The only way to translate such percents to CSS is to introduce flex units in
CSS. No other way so far.
All 100% here are precisely 1*;
As I said many times already that in 99% of cases when people are asking for
better percents in CSS
they are asking for flexes.
Sorry for boring persistence.
[1] http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-layout/flex-layout.htm
--
Andrew Fedoniouk
http://terrainformatica.com